Louisiana, Incorporation, And States’ Rights

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Because a court makes a decision that alters or purports to alter foundational law, which the Constitution is, does not make it right. What they’ve basically done is amend the First Amendment. In the McDonald case, they amended the Second Amendment. In other cases, they amended Amendments Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight as well. They don’t have the authority to do that. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike: Corey is in Illinois, first up today. Corey, you’re the leadoff hitter. How you doing?

Caller Corey: Pretty good, Mr. Church. I have to start off, you wrecked my Friday. First of all, you told me life isn’t fair and my local mayor is not doing their job. Thanks for that. My question has to do with states’ rights and the right to bear arms, freedom of speech. The state has the right to regulate how the people bear arms, I understand that, but couldn’t the state also regulate the free speech aspect of it?

Mike: Of course they can, absolutely.

Caller Corey: Anytime you see anything in the media, everybody screams —

Hear the story of the United States AFTER the Constitution like you’ve never heard it before

Mike: First Amendment rights, right. That’s because people have been brainwashed by mythology-peddling talk show hosts, authors, legislators since 1947 when the incorporation doctrine became a reality. I was talking about the State of Louisiana a couple moments ago. Do you know the governor is throwing his weight behind a bill that is going to make its way through the legislature here which will ban the protestation within 500 feet of a funeral, memorial service, or worship service? In other words, what they tried to do in Kansas we’re going to do in Louisiana.

Why would Governor Jindal — knowing the Supreme Court has already said that they are the supreme, almighty federal overlords and the First Amendment is universal, that it stretches from here all the way to the ice world of Hoth, then to Romulus, then through the Stargate at the other side of the universe — put his name and his legislative political capital behind an effort that he knows has already been proclaimed to be a non sequitur in any given state? Why do you think he would do that, Corey?

Caller Corey: Maybe to shove his nose at the establishment, show them the states still have a say.

Mike: Maybe Governor Jindal has actually been listening to Mike Church. Maybe Governor Jindal has been getting a healthy dose of [r]epublicanism and has actually discovered that the Louisiana legislature, in our bill of rights, Article I, Section 7, has reserved the right to punish or proscribe people who abuse their free speech privileges, and he’s going to do so by an act of the legislature, which I believe will pass by a large majority and that Jindal will sign. As I predicted yesterday in my ABC television news commentary that runs locally in New Orleans — you can catch it on ABC26 on Tuesdays and Thursdays — the moment the bill comes up, the local ACLU will begin drafting its case to bring it to a federal court and get it struck down. This ultimately will go all the way back to, I suspect, back to the Supreme Court again, and you know what the result is going to be. I think that Bobby Jindal is sending a message to Marco Rubio and Rand Paul and anyone else that’s paying attention saying: You clowns aren’t the only ones that have some aspirations for 2016. Andrew, what do you think about that?

AG: He’s got them. It’ll be interesting to see what happens.

Mike:I know you think he’s not electable because he doesn’t play well on television. I think legislatively speaking, the governor is on the right track here. I wholeheartedly support him in this. As a matter of fact, I may even write him a letter and tell him that I wholeheartedly support him in this.

AG:Where would you put him legislatively with Scott Walker?

Mike: Jindal is far superior. He is a Rhodes Scholar, which means he may be too smart. His job, when he worked in the private sector, was in the medical industry. You know that, right?

AG: I didn’t realize that was his past, no.

Mike: Yeah, I think he worked for Humana or one of the hospital chains. He knows medicine and the medical industry very well. That’s why he’s not signing off on the increase in Medicaid spending because he knows how disastrous it’s going to be. This state is already $7 billion in the hole for Medicaid payments we can’t afford. I’m very encouraged by his action. You asked me about incorporation, Corey, which is why I brought it up. The First Amendment does not apply here in my state, and it doesn’t apply in yours of Illinois. It only applies to the national legislature.

I can get all manner of hate mail, and I’m going to get it as soon as I’m finished with this monologue, of people informing me the Supreme Court has done this and said that. Why do I persist? Because I’m not like you. Because a court makes a decision that alters or purports to alter foundational law, which the Constitution is, does not make it right. What they’ve basically done is amend the First Amendment. In the McDonald case, they amended the Second Amendment. In other cases, they amended Amendments Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight as well. They don’t have the authority to do that. Only Congress can do that and then the states through an act of ratification. You asked me about incorporation and I’m telling you that there are efforts now — we can see one right here in real time — to un-incorporate the First Amendment. I’m encouraged by that.